Teori Tabanlı Değerlendirmeye Dayalı Eklektik Bir Program Geliştirme Modeli

Year 2022, Volume: 8 Issue: 1, 132 - 151, 29.03.2022

Ufuk Uluçınar

https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.1030701

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, ortaokul öğrencilerine özenli düşünme becerilerini kazandırmaya yönelik bir eğitim programı geliştirme sürecinde izlenen yeni ve eklektik program geliştirme modelini tanıtmak; test edilen bu modelin ana hatlarını ortaya koymaktır. Teori tabanlı değerlendirme dayalı kendi kendini doğrulayan ve güçlü yaklaşımları içine alan bu eklektik bir program geliştirme modeli; durum çalışması, sıralı keşfedici karma desen, eylem araştırması ve gömülü teori desenlerini barındıran çoklu yöntem araştırma desenini içermektedir. Bu araştırma desenleri bağlamında kurgulanan ihtiyaç değerlendirme, tasarım, uygulama ve değerlendirme safhalarında çok sayıda nicel ve nitel ölçme aracı kullanılmıştır. Bu ölçme araçları sayesinde programın bileşenleri (tasarım, öğretim süreci vb.) ile öğrencilerde kazandırılması beklenen özelliklerin ortaya çıkarılması hedeflenmiştir. Bu işlemler neticesinde programın beklenen etkiye sahip olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Bu program geliştirme modelinin düşünme eğitimi, değer eğitimi ve kavram öğretimi gibi soyut yapıların eğitiminde geliştirilmesi olası eğitim programları kapsamında takip edilebileceği önerilmektedir. Dahası, gelecek çalışmalarında eklektik yaklaşımın hem salt olarak ihtiyaç değerlendirme, program tasarımı, uygulama ve değerlendirme süreçlerinin her biri kendi içinde hem de bütüncül bir program geliştirme çalışmalarında benimsenebileceği önerilmektedir.

Keywords

Eklektik tasarım, özenli düşünme, program geliştirme, gömülü teori., Eklektik tasarım, özenli düşünme, program geliştirme, gömülü teori.

References

• Aldridge, J. M., Rijken, P. E. ve Fraser, B. J. (2021). Improving learning environments through whole-school collaborative action research. Learning Environments Research, 24(2),183-205.
• Balantic, J. ve Fregosi, E. (2012). Strengthening student thinking and writing about world history. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 25(2), 16-17.
• Baskerville, R. L. ve Pries-Heje, J. (1999). Grounded action research: A method for understanding it in practice. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 9(1), 1–23.
• Baturay, M. (2007). Evaluation of an english course at an anatolian high school with an eclectic point of view: A case study. the International Educational Technology (IETC) Conference, Nicosia, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
• Beavers, E., Orange, A. ve Kirkwood, D. (2017). Fostering critical and reflective thinking in an authentic learning situation. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 38(1), 3-18.
• Bennett, E. E. (2016). Puzzling the picture using grounded theory. International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology, 7(3), 82-94.
• Bennett, R. E., Deane, P. ve van Rijn, P. W. (2016). From cognitive-domain theory to assessment practice. Educational Psychologist, 51(1), 82-107.
• Burton, A. (2020). How do I know my students are learning? Formative assessment connects learning targets to student outcomes. Learning Professional, 41(2), 28-31.
• Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. USA: Sage.
• Chaves, O. ve Guapacha, M. E. (2016). An eclectic professional development proposal for english language teachers. PROFILE: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 18(1), 71-96.
• Curtiss, D. (1993). An eclectic approach to the interpretation of visual statements. In: Visual literacy in the digital age: Selected Readings from the Annual Conference of the International Visual Literacy Association, Rochester, New York.
• Edmond, W. A. ve Kennedy, T. D. (2017). An applied guide to research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (Second edition). USA: Sage.
• Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R. ve Worthen, B. R. (2004). Program evaluation-alternative approaches and practical guidelines (3. Edition). Boston: Allyn ve Bacon.
• Hanfstingl, B., Abuja, G., Isak, G., Lechner, C. ve Steigberger, E. (2020). Continuing professional development designed as second-order action research: Work-in-progress. Educational Action Research, 28(1), 71-82.
• Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education Settings. New York: State University of Newyork Press.
• Hesse-Biber, S. ve Johnson, R. B. (2015). The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry. UK: Oxford University Press. Honebein, P. C. ve Sink, D. L. (2012). The practice of eclectic instructional eclectic program. “Retrieved from https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/1788 in 28.09.2021.”
• Hunter, A. D. ve Brewer, J. (2015). Designing multimethod research. In S. N. Hesse-Biber, ve R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry (Oxford Library of Psychology) (1st edition ed., pp. 185-205). UK: Oxford University Press.
• İşcan, A. (2017). The use of eclectic method in teaching Turkish to foreign students. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(7), 149-153.
• Kemmis, S. ve Mctaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Geelong: Deakin University.
• Kumar, C. P. (2013). The eclectic method-theory and ıts application to the learning of English. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 3(6), 1-4. Kumar, K. V. Joshua, A. M., Kedambadi, R. ve Mithra P. P. (2017). Eclectic/mixed model method for upper extremity functional recovery in stroke rehabilitation: A pilot study. J Nat Sc Biol Med, 8, 75-81.
• Lewin, K. (1952). Group decision and social change. G. E. Swanson, T.M. Newcomb ve E.L. Hartley (Eds), Readings in Social Psychology, (pp. 459-473). New York: Henry Holt and Company.
• Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education. UK: Cambridge University Press.
• McKillip, J. (1987). Need analysis: Tools for the human services and education. USA: Sage.
• Mcmahon, J. ve Cullinan, V. (2016). Exploring eclecticism: The impact of educational theory on the development and implementation of Comprehensive Education Programmes (CEP’s) for Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 32, 1–12.
• Mertens, D. A. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology (3rd ed.). USA: Sage.
• Mohr, E. S. (1990). What in my world/the world is going on?: A pragmatic-eclectic approach toward rhetoric and literature for the composition. the Conference on Rhetoric and the Teaching of Writing, Indiana.
• O’neil, G. ve Murphy, F. (2010). Guide to taxonomies of learning. UCD Teaching and Learning/Resources”. “Retrieved from http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/ucdtla0034.pdf in 21.09.2021.”
• Ornstein, A. C. ve Hunkins, F. P. (1998). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (3rd ed.). USA: Allyn ve Bacon.
• Özkan Elgün, İ. (2018). İlkokul 2. sınıf ingilizce dersi öğretim programının eklektik modele göre değerlendirilmesi. Doktora Tezi, Hacettepe Universitesi, Ankara.
• Posner, G. J. (1995). Analyzing the curriculum. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rubrica, R. D. B. (2018). An action research on project-based learnıng and understanding by desıgn and their effects on the science achievement and attıtude of science students. Doctorate Thesis, Caloocan city.
• Saban, A. (2021). Curriculum development through action research: A model proposal for practitioners. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi, 11(1), 299-354.
• Sagar, N. ve Afzal, T. (2019). English language teaching through eclectic approach for engineering students. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE), 7(5S4), 755-758.
• Soles, D. (2003). An eclectic approach to the teaching of writing. the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, New York.
• Srikongchan, W., Kaewkuekool, S. ve Mejaleurn, S. (2021). Backward instructional design based learning activities to developing students' creative thinking with lateral thinking technique. International Journal of Instruction, 14(2), 233-252.
• Stufflebeam, D. L. (2003). The CIPP model for evaluation. D. L. Stufflebeam ve T. Kellaghan (Eds.), The International Handbook of Educational Evaluation (Chapter 2). Dordrecht: Springer.
• Temiz, N. (2010). An action research on program development process for determining multiple intelligences profiles of 1st, 2nd and 3rd graders. Doctorate Dissertation, METU, Ankara.
• Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Wiggins, G. ve Mctighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. USA: Association for Supervision ve Curriculum Development.
• Yan, Y. (2010). Towards an eclectic framework for teaching EFL writing in a Chinese context. US-China Education Review, 7(3), 29-33.